41–46 of 46 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure how this is related to the cost/benefit of voting? Yes you can not vote and still live here. And? (I'm not trying to be argumentative, just don't understand).
I think it's a reply to your description of voting as one of "the costs you have to pay to live in a democracy". You don't, strictly, have to pay that cost.
...and now every other executive in SV is pushing for Calexit. It would be something if the end result of Thiel backing Trump is that Silicon Valley ceases to be part of the United States.
With what army? Without the might of the United States military, the Mexican drug cartel would quickly take over California. After a few years under cartel rule, Californians will be seen crossing the border illegally back into United States.
These kinds of people don't ever think about the implications and consequences of their actions.
https://medium.com/@internaut_48577/peter-and-the-wolfe-b8de....
And here is the original comment:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12884413
Here is a teaser:
"I think what most passers-by to Thiel’s Trump endorsement have wrong, is that they think this is some kind of fluke like a random personality quirk or even a midlife crisis. Hence the whole affair may be dismissed as the ramblings of a strange mad billionaire.
If you watch Thiel’s presentations going back over a decade, you’ll see something different. These are all public but it takes about a hundred hours or more so most people have jumped around, looking for the gist of what is going on, such as all these journalists attempting to psychoanalyze Thiel, with the obvious motives that first: something weird needs to be explained (100 journalists at the recent press conference!) and less honorably second: he has to be vilified as a prominent opposing political entity external to their tribe.
This is unfortunate because the truth is far more interesting albeit very difficult to explain in a way that would impart an understanding..."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As it should be, if you're not passionate enough to get to the polls and stand in line for a few minutes then you shouldn't have a voice in the election.
I'm not sure that being ruled by the most passionate is actually that effective. It seems to me that passion and a lack of intelligence seem strongly correlated. It's easy to work someone who can't see the broader picture, up into a frenzy than it is to convince people with complicated and diverse views into that same frenzy. It is frankly, why the Republican party could toe the same line for decades, echo that on ra…
This is actually categorically false, see the book Peak by Anders Ericsson for more information on this: https://www.amazon.com/Peak-Secrets-New-Science-Expertise/dp...
people who are passionate are MUCH more intelligent and knowledgeable about issues and it's been proven.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that logic Clinton's supporters are a minority too. After all, 59,938,290 < 59,704,886 + 4,072,835 + 1,218,065 + 804,228
No shit, Sherlock.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
That means posting civilly and substantively, or not at all.